"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ps.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:41:14 GMT):

7 I can understand thread drift, but after looking at this post
7 [remnant above] for the 3rd time, can Blair actually write
7 on topic? Can he even understand the format of newsnet,
7 which does not require him to post histories of the subject.
7 People requote others here in order to answer them or
7 make an emphasis - but of their own comments, and such
7 histories as Blair performs are his own edited comments
7 which strip the context and sequence or writing, as if it
7 did not exist - in fact he juxtaposes material which have
7 no business being together.
7
7 For example, I wrote earlier of an opportunity extended to
7 him to contact family Morphy - various dunces doubted
7 this as they doubt everything, but Blair has neither
7 affirmed nor denied.
7
7 Is that a selective 'no comment'?
7
7 It is frankly idiotic to profess that these edits are not
7 compositions of Blair's own opinions and his selection
7 of material according to his own design - and this
7 illustration of excising a contact with family-Morphy is
7 the /only/ on topic element relevant to this thread.
7
7 Is Blair 'fairly' reporting off-topic material as if this were
7 somehow relevant in a newsgroup? While cutting
7 on-topic material to which he could contribute, if he
7 would only own his own actions?

_
I am responding to attacks against me that OTHERS
chose to post in this thread. Phil Innes may prefer that
I not respond to such attacks, but he will not necessarily
get his wish. While responding to such attacks, I see
nothing wrong with ignoring subjects that I have no
obligation to discuss.

I 'may prefer' invents Louis on the subject of 'attacks', which I did not
mention, but I will 'not necessarily' get whatever Louis thinks I wish
for.... yawn.

This is in response to a straight question.

Louis seems more concerned with the subject of 'attacks' than with Morphy.
As if he or these attacks were actually more important in some way than
Morphy - and of course, he passes on responding to why he prefers this odd
concentration about himself, when I directly asked him above why he never
contacted family Morphy, to mention instead 'attacks' as if I had asked him
that.

Louis is replying that he has no obligation to address either the topic of
the thread, or direct questions put to him, yet asserts his right to talk
about himself, though without actually addressing his own role in editing
content. yawn

This seems to be what Louis Blair is about. Its about him. But he can't say
its about him, and so invents a way to hide his activities as if he wasn't
here.

Phil Innes